Morning After Pill Now Available For 15 Year Olds

[Aufan59 101]

It's not agenda. A sexually active 12-year old, or a 12-year old that's being preyed upon by a significantly older male, is a more serious matter than a 12-year old with a headache.

Depends on what you call "serious".

No deaths have been linked to using emergency contraceptive pills, yet there were 458 deaths related to acetaminophen associated overdoses per year during the 1990-1998 period.

A sexually active 12 year old probably does not have proper parental guidance. If a 12 year old without proper parental guidance is looking to correct her mistake, then does forcing her to have proper parental guidance to correct this mistake make sense?

[ToomersRevenge 284]

A link to serious complications involving Plan B would bolster the "con" argument here.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

A sexually active 12 year old probably does not have proper parental guidance. If a 12 year old without proper parental guidance is looking to correct her mistake, then does forcing her to have proper parental guidance to correct this mistake make sense?

Sometimes, even kids with good parental guidance get going down a bad path due to peer pressure. Or sometimes they are being preyed upon by someone much older and more scheming than they are. In either case, exacerbating the issue by leaving the parents out of it will only make things worse.

Also, death isn't the only serious complication. And as I mentioned, the motivation for taking Tylenol isn't exactly the same.

A link to serious complications involving Plan B would bolster the "con" argument here.

Well, there's the possibility of a severe allergic reaction.

There's nausea, vomiting and diarrhea if you take too much. A girl could have some or all of these symptoms and the parents wouldn't have any idea what's causing it or what to tell a doctor once they got to the emergency room that might help them diagnose the source of the problem.

Certain drugs may have their side effects exacerbated by taking Plan B. It can also decrease the effectiveness of some medications such as those use to treat epilepsy.

Of course the other problem is, these drugs don't actually have any clinical trials to show what they might do to a younger girl. This is a high dose hormone intended for women.

Now none of this means Plan B is automatically off the table. But a 12-year old who's panicking over a possible pregnancy isn't likely going to know these things. We're just hoping for the best that she knows about drug interactions since she's getting zero adult guidance on this.

[homersapien 11,812]

...which is not a decision the government should be making. 12-year olds are not adults, they are children. We don't allow children to make all kinds of decisions (your cute list notwithstanding), especially things that involve altering the natural function of their bodies without any adult supervision.

It smacks of an agenda...an agenda that comes from a view that my government thinks its parental decisions are preferable to mine. That it should be able to tell my kids when it's ok to start taking birth control rather than me. That it should take a rather natural tendency (kids hiding some stuff from parents) and exacerbate it by putting birth control on the shelves within their reach and with no mechanism to even inform me that it's being purchased and used, much less afford me any input into the situation.

Honestly, I'm flabbergasted that people really think this is a good idea.

The government is not making the parental decisions for you. Just as you might not want your child drinking a caffeinated beverage or taking children's Tylenol (which alter the bodies natural functions), government allowing children to buy these products does not mean they are making parental decisions for you.

If a product is legal for a child to buy, then the government is making parental decisions for you? I think this is a ridiculous stance.

The only thing that smacks of an agenda is the outrage over anything to do with Plan B or contraception.

Really.

I don't get that "agenda" thing at all. :-\

[homersapien 11,812]

Sometimes, even kids with good parental guidance get going down a bad path due to peer pressure. Or sometimes they are being preyed upon by someone much older and more scheming than they are. In either case, exacerbating the issue by leaving the parents out of it will only make things worse.

If your 12 year-old daughter feels she cannot come to you after getting pregnant, it's not the governments fault. The government is not "leaving you out of it", you are taking yourself out.

Likewise, it's not the government's role to assume the responsibility as parents for any given 12 year-old, even if the girl doesn't have parents, much less if her parents are negligent or abusive. However, IMO, in the latter cases, government should support agencies that provide the girl help and counseling, but her portfolio of options should include the "morning-after" pill.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Really.

I don't get that "agenda" thing at all. :-\/>

Because you filter out anything that doesn't fit your narrative.

It goes along with the other crap we see our government and government agencies do to insert themselves into the parent-child relationship and limit the influence and authority that parents have. It's the same kind of thinking that tries to make it ok for a minor child to get an abortion without parental consent. Or to transport a child across state lines to get an abortion in states where under a certain age you must have a parent or legal guardian sign off.

There is an agenda to assert government authority into the sphere of the family. That is the problem.

Sometimes, even kids with good parental guidance get going down a bad path due to peer pressure. Or sometimes they are being preyed upon by someone much older and more scheming than they are. In either case, exacerbating the issue by leaving the parents out of it will only make things worse.

If your 12 year-old daughter feels she cannot come to you after getting pregnant, it's not the governments fault.

When crazy stuff happens like the fear of a pregnancy, a kid is not always going to think clearly. In fact, I'd say that a kid that age thinking clearly through all the ramifications would be exceedingly rare. Even loving parents may institute some disciplinary measures upon finding out such a young child has gotten involved sexually with someone, including bringing an end to the relationship with the boy in question, telling his parents and so on. If the boy is a good bit older and no longer a minor, the 12-year old may fear the parents will call the police on the boy and she doesn't want that to happen. It's not about whether she "can come to [me]" after getting pregnant, it's that there are some overwhelming incentives to cover it all up even for basically good kids. This only makes things worse and facilitates the cover up.

The government is not "leaving you out of it", you are taking yourself out.

Spoken like a childless person. I didn't take myself out, the government has prevented me from being able to step in. I can't help with something I don't know about and when it's something this big, it is a natural first reaction for a kid to try and keep from getting in trouble or getting someone else in trouble if there's an easy way out. That's a terrible temptation to put out there for them.

Likewise, it's not the government's role to assume the responsibility as parents for any given 12 year-old, even if the girl doesn't have parents, much less if her parents are negligent or abusive. However, IMO, in the latter cases, government should support agencies that provide a girl in that position help and counseling, but the portfolio of options should include the "morning-after" pill.

It is not the government's role to assume responsibility for telling my child when she can purchase and take birth control, ESPECIALLY at such a young age. That is not their domain, it is the domain of the family and parents. it is not the government's responsibility to take the situation of the girl who has bad parents or no real parents and make rules that fit her specific situation now cover ours.

And your last line is nonsense. The government isn't supporting an agency to help girls, they're just putting serious medicine on the shelf for her to purchase and take with no parental notice, much less involvement in the decision making process. There's no regard for the emotional maturity of a young girl. There's no regard for the potential side effects, allergic reactions or interactions with other medications she may be taking. Hell, the girl doesn't even get the benefit of a pharmacist perhaps explaining exactly how it's to be taken or asking some of these questions. Just "here you go, sweetie! What Mom and Dad don't know won't hurt 'em!"

[autigeremt 6,970]

Sometimes, even kids with good parental guidance get going down a bad path due to peer pressure. Or sometimes they are being preyed upon by someone much older and more scheming than they are. In either case, exacerbating the issue by leaving the parents out of it will only make things worse.

If your 12 year-old daughter feels she cannot come to you after getting pregnant, it's not the governments fault. The government is not "leaving you out of it", you are taking yourself out.

Likewise, it's not the government's role to assume the responsibility as parents for any given 12 year-old, even if the girl doesn't have parents, much less if her parents are negligent or abusive. However, IMO, in the latter cases, government should support agencies that provide the girl help and counseling, but her portfolio of options should include the "morning-after" pill.

I'm torn on this one. I have two daughters. Do you have a daughter, Homer? Would you want the government telling you what your 12 year old can do without your knowledge? Does the government penalize the majority to help the minority once again? I don't like it at all, but I'm a responsible parent and I would hope my kids were. My girls are 14 and 18 and I've made it clear what would happen if they were to make that mistake. That decision rests with me!

[Aufan59 101]

Sometimes, even kids with good parental guidance get going down a bad path due to peer pressure. Or sometimes they are being preyed upon by someone much older and more scheming than they are. In either case, exacerbating the issue by leaving the parents out of it will only make things worse.

Not allowing a 12 year old who doesn't have proper parental guidence to get plan B is exacerbating a problem too. Availability of contraception is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Also, death isn't the only serious complication. And as I mentioned, the motivation for taking Tylenol isn't exactly the same.

This is my point. Your disagreement doesn't come from the dangers of plan B, but the moral implications of plan B.

[alexava 6,974]

Sometimes, even kids with good parental guidance get going down a bad path due to peer pressure. Or sometimes they are being preyed upon by someone much older and more scheming than they are. In either case, exacerbating the issue by leaving the parents out of it will only make things worse.

Not allowing a 12 year old who doesn't have proper parental guidence to get plan B is exacerbating a problem too. Availability of contraception is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Also, death isn't the only serious complication. And as I mentioned, the motivation for taking Tylenol isn't exactly the same.

This is my point. Your disagreement doesn't come from the dangers of plan B, but the moral implications of plan B.

^^

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Not allowing a 12 year old who doesn't have proper parental guidence to get plan B is exacerbating a problem too. Availability of contraception is a good thing, not a bad thing.

No one said it couldn't be available. I'm saying it shouldn't be available to a 11 or 12 year old without any adult guidance whatsoever, particularly parents. The solution to a child already making decisions best left to young adults is not to give them more power to make adult decisions they aren't mature enough to handle.

This is my point. Your disagreement doesn't come from the dangers of plan B, but the moral implications of plan B.

You have a really bad habit of following a predetermined narrative that exists only in your head and projecting that onto others. I don't have any qualms with putting forth a moral argument. You won't have to read between the lines or employ any latent mind-reading talents you think you may possess. My argument was not a moral one.

First, there are actual dangers that I showed from the product warnings themselves. Dangers with causes the parents wouldn't have any idea to tell an ER doctor because people like you have decided 12-year olds are capable of making adult decisions on their own.

Second, the vast majority of even purely secular psychologists would tell you that having an 11 or 12-year old that's sexually active is a problem. They are not old enough to properly handle all that comes with sexual activity, mentally or emotionally. They are not mature enough to think through all the ramifications of their actions. If a girl that young is having sex with a boy that's several years older than her, the likelihood that she will feel in control enough to demand he wear a condom to protect from STDs is slim at best. The stats for how such kids turn out when they become sexually active so young are not good at all.

Finally, when I speak of "motivations", I'm talking about the motivation to stay out of serious trouble. There is virtually no scenario where a kid is going to be desperate to take a bunch of Tylenol. But the fear of becoming pregnant and her parents from finding out, or the boy's parents from finding out, or having a relationship with a boy that's too old to legally have sex with her are big motivating factors. And without proper advice, misusing the drug and causing some of the complications I mentioned or having the drug interactions I mentioned are increased.

[Aufan59 101]

There are more dangerous products available to 11 and 12 year olds without parental guidance. If it is safe to use, and it can benefit society and the individual, then why not?

The fact that plan B can be used to stay out of serious trouble (having a child when you are 11 or 12) is why it should be readily available to those without good parents. I am having a hard time believing that an 11 or 12 year old will decide to become sexually active because plan B is now available to them without parent consent.

Furthermore, when we have mentally deranged parents out there that believe rape is a gift from god (i.e. Santorum), I am glad that their child can ignore their mentally deranged father and seek out their own, sane, solutions.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

There are more dangerous products available to 11 and 12 year olds without parental guidance. If it is safe to use, and it can benefit society and the individual, then why not?

That virtually no 11year old is going to have much incentive to want to take, much less take too much.

The fact that plan B can be used to stay out of serious trouble (having a child when you are 11 or 12) is why it should be readily available to those without good parents. I am having a hard time believing that an 11 or 12 year old will decide to become sexually active because plan B is now available to them without parent consent.

That broken record spinning between your ears is confusing you again. I didn't say they would become sexually active because of Plan B. Address the arguments actually I make, not the ones you wish to debate against.

Furthermore, when we have mentally deranged parents out there that believe rape is a gift from god (i.e. Santorum), I am glad that their child can ignore their mentally deranged father and seek out their own, sane, solutions.

Well, while I don't carry water for Santorum, that's not what he said. Regardless, you don't facilitate the removal of good parents from adult decisions for 12 year olds because you don't like how some view sex.

[AUcivE09 582]

Have you guys not figured out Titan is right? He will die with this argument. You support rape and tearing families apart if you think otherwise. I am pretty hard headed but this thread is like the KF discussion thread - better abandoned.....or good luck getting the last word in. Now excuse me while I go back to my day job of snipping spines.

[Weegle777 78]

There are more dangerous products available to 11 and 12 year olds without parental guidance. If it is safe to use, and it can benefit society and the individual, then why not?

The fact that plan B can be used to stay out of serious trouble (having a child when you are 11 or 12) is why it should be readily available to those without good parents. I am having a hard time believing that an 11 or 12 year old will decide to become sexually active because plan B is now available to them without parent consent.

Furthermore, when we have mentally deranged parents out there that believe rape is a gift from god (i.e. Santorum), I am glad that their child can ignore their mentally deranged father and seek out their own, sane, solutions.

Do you have kids? You mean to tell me that if a kid knew that he or she could have unprotected sex with no repercussions of responsibility of becoming pregnant, that they wouldn't take advantage of that? If you believe that kids wouldn't, then you are incredibly naive. Kids will take advantage of any situation if there are no chances of trouble. Come on, you are smarter than this.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Have you guys not figured out Titan is right? He will die with this argument. You support rape and tearing families apart if you think otherwise. I am pretty hard headed but this thread is like the KF discussion thread - better abandoned.....or good luck getting the last word in. Now excuse me while I go back to my day job of snipping spines.

Yeah, because I'm the only one repeatedly replying to posts in this thread.

[MDM4AU 337]

Now excuse me while I go back to my day job of being a tactless jackass :poke:/>

FTFY

[finxster 4]

"We want small government. We want small government. Stay out of our life."

...on second thought...

"If you don't regulate this, you are ruining the family unit."

Give me a break...

[TitanTiger 20,708]

"We want small government. We want small government. Stay out of our life."

...on second thought...

"If you don't regulate this, you are ruining the family unit."

Give me a break...

Not sure who you're aiming that at, but it doesn't fit my views.

[homersapien 11,812]

There are more dangerous products available to 11 and 12 year olds without parental guidance. If it is safe to use, and it can benefit society and the individual, then why not?

The fact that plan B can be used to stay out of serious trouble (having a child when you are 11 or 12) is why it should be readily available to those without good parents. I am having a hard time believing that an 11 or 12 year old will decide to become sexually active because plan B is now available to them without parent consent.

Furthermore, when we have mentally deranged parents out there that believe rape is a gift from god (i.e. Santorum), I am glad that their child can ignore their mentally deranged father and seek out their own, sane, solutions.

Do you have kids? You mean to tell me that if a kid knew that he or she could have unprotected sex with no repercussions of responsibility of becoming pregnant, that they wouldn't take advantage of that? If you believe that kids wouldn't, then you are incredibly naive. Kids will take advantage of any situation if there are no chances of trouble. Come on, you are smarter than this.

Well, I suppose if you think fear is a good rational for promulgating religion, it's hardly a surprise you would use it for promulgating moral sexual standards.

[homersapien 11,812]

.....

This is my point. Your disagreement doesn't come from the dangers of plan B, but the moral implications of plan B.

.....First, there are actual dangers that I showed from the product warnings themselves. Dangers with causes the parents wouldn't have any idea to tell an ER doctor because people like you have decided 12-year olds are capable of making adult decisions on their own.

First, it's the FDA's job to determine what represents an acceptable risk (for OTC drugs), so in effect, you are saying you know more about the dangers than they do.

Secondly, You have to balance the risks with the reward. I haven't seen you list any negatives that even come close to the negatives associated with pregnancy, either from a health standpoint or a "life impact" standpoint.

[homersapien 11,812]

Have you guys not figured out Titan is right? He will die with this argument. You support rape and tearing families apart if you think otherwise. I am pretty hard headed but this thread is like the KF discussion thread - better abandoned.....or good luck getting the last word in. Now excuse me while I go back to my day job of snipping spines.

It has little to do with his being "right" or "wrong". The frustration comes from his refusal to acknowledge his own arguments.

It's hard to debate someone when they simply deny their posts mean (much less infer) what they say.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

First, it's the FDA's job to determine that, so in effect, you are saying you know more about the dangers than they do.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that when you keep parents in the dark and put it on a 12-year old alone to understand the dangers and be able to somehow communicate them to a doctor is some of them start to manifest, you're on the wrong path.

Secondly, You have to balance the risks with the reward. I haven't seen you list any negatives that even come close to the negatives associated with pregnancy, either from a health standpoint and life impact standpoint.

So, if a girl who takes medication for seizures (one of the more common ones that interacts with Plan B can be taken by children as young as 2) takes this, and it causes her seizure medicine to lose effectiveness, and she has a serious seizure...she's acceptable collateral damage? The bean counters have determined that it's an acceptable risk...that having parents involved in the decision who could have warned her about this or at least would know what to tell a doctor isn't necessary?

Have you guys not figured out Titan is right? He will die with this argument. You support rape and tearing families apart if you think otherwise. I am pretty hard headed but this thread is like the KF discussion thread - better abandoned.....or good luck getting the last word in. Now excuse me while I go back to my day job of snipping spines.

It has little to do with his being "right" or "wrong". The frustration comes from his refusal to acknowledge his own arguments.

It's hard to debate someone when they simply deny their posts mean (much less infer) what they say.

I acknowledge the arguments I actually make. I call bull**** on the ones less than honest people try to put into my mouth.

[homersapien 11,812]

First, it's the FDA's job to determine that, so in effect, you are saying you know more about the dangers than they do.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that when you keep parents in the dark and put it on a 12-year old alone to understand the dangers and be able to somehow communicate them to a doctor is some of them start to manifest, you're on the wrong path.

OK. Now please explain again exactly how the FDA is "keeping parents in the dark".

And maybe that 12 year-old is a lot smarter and mature than you think (even if she allowed herself to get pregnant).

Maybe she has a full appreciation for what's at risk: The morning after pill (with all it's potential side effects) or pregnancy (with a most definite list of absolute "side effects")

[TitanTiger 20,708]

First, it's the FDA's job to determine that, so in effect, you are saying you know more about the dangers than they do.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that when you keep parents in the dark and put it on a 12-year old alone to understand the dangers and be able to somehow communicate them to a doctor is some of them start to manifest, you're on the wrong path.

OK. Now please explain again exactly how the FDA is "keeping parents in the dark".

And maybe that 12 year-old is a lot smarter and mature than you think (even if she allowed herself to get pregnant).

Maybe she has a full appreciation for what's at risk: The morning after pill (with all it's potential side effects) or pregnancy (with a most definite list of absolute "side effects")

Because before, the kid couldn't purchase this for herself. Her parents or at least some other adult would have to do it. If there was a problem, at least someone would know what likely led to it. As it is now, some of the side effects or drug interactions could start to manifest and no one would be able to tell the doctor anything. They wouldn't have a clue as to what was causing the problem.

And while the occasional 12 year old (or 11 or 10 year old...no age limits: wheeeeeee!) might understand the implications of taking too much, drug interactions and other side effects, the vast majority would not. It's a far cry from being talked into having sex and being able to understand drug side effects and complications.

[homersapien 11,812]

So, if a girl who takes medication for seizures (one of the more common ones that interacts with Plan B can be taken by children as young as 2) takes this, and it causes her seizure medicine to lose effectiveness, and she has a serious seizure...she's acceptable collateral damage? The bean counters have determined that it's an acceptable risk...that having parents involved in the decision who could have warned her about this or at least would know what to tell a doctor isn't necessary?

Well she may or may not present an "acceptable risk".

What are the effects of seizures and anti-seizure medications on a pregnant woman?

From the FDA's perspective, are the risks of this happening (the likely numbers of pregnant 12 year-olds taking this medication) outweigh the disadvantages of restricting access (thus increasing the number of pregnant 12 year-olds).

Sounds cold, but that's the way these sort of decisions are considered.